Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil

Autores
de Gerónimo, Eduardo; Lorenzón, Claudio; Iwasita, Bárbara; Costa, José L.
Año de publicación
2018
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Modern agricultural technology is based on a package that combines direct seeding and glyphosate with transgenic crops (soybean, maize, and cotton). Because of widespread glyphosate use, it is important to assess its impact on the environment. However, glyphosate´s unique physicochemical characteristics make determination difficult at residue concentrations, especially in soils with high organic matter content, such as the soils from the central eastern region of Argentina, where strong analytical interferences are normally observed. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency of two extraction methods of glyphosate using representative soils from Argentina. One method is based on the use of a phosphate buffer as the extracting solution and dichloromethane to minimize matrix organic content. The other method uses potassium hydroxide for the soil extraction of analytes and involves a cleanup step using solid phase extraction to minimize analytical interferences. Both methodologies involve a derivatization with 9-fluorenyl-methyl-chloroformate in borate buffer, the use of isotope labeled glyphosate as an internal standard, and detection based on ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Recoveries obtained for soil samples spiked at 100 and 1000 μg kg−1 were satisfactory in both methods (70%?120%). However, significant differences were observed in the effects on the organic matrix. The solid phase extraction cleanup step was insufficient to remove the interferences, whereas the dilution and the cleanup with dichloromethane were more effective in minimizing the ionic suppression.
Fil: de Gerónimo, Eduardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Área de Investigación en Agronomía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Lorenzón, Claudio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Córdoba. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; Argentina
Fil: Iwasita, Bárbara. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Misiones. Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul. Agencia de Extension Rural Apostoles.; Argentina
Fil: Costa, José L.. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Área de Investigación en Agronomía; Argentina
Materia
Glyphosate
AMPA
Soil
Ultra-performance Chromatography
Matrix effects
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/101572
Acceder
id CONICETDig_0a0573d97ace25a6e4ca478708e5136b
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/101572
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soilde Gerónimo, EduardoLorenzón, ClaudioIwasita, BárbaraCosta, José L.GlyphosateAMPASoilUltra-performance ChromatographyMatrix effectshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.4https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Modern agricultural technology is based on a package that combines direct seeding and glyphosate with transgenic crops (soybean, maize, and cotton). Because of widespread glyphosate use, it is important to assess its impact on the environment. However, glyphosate´s unique physicochemical characteristics make determination difficult at residue concentrations, especially in soils with high organic matter content, such as the soils from the central eastern region of Argentina, where strong analytical interferences are normally observed. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency of two extraction methods of glyphosate using representative soils from Argentina. One method is based on the use of a phosphate buffer as the extracting solution and dichloromethane to minimize matrix organic content. The other method uses potassium hydroxide for the soil extraction of analytes and involves a cleanup step using solid phase extraction to minimize analytical interferences. Both methodologies involve a derivatization with 9-fluorenyl-methyl-chloroformate in borate buffer, the use of isotope labeled glyphosate as an internal standard, and detection based on ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Recoveries obtained for soil samples spiked at 100 and 1000 μg kg−1 were satisfactory in both methods (70%?120%). However, significant differences were observed in the effects on the organic matrix. The solid phase extraction cleanup step was insufficient to remove the interferences, whereas the dilution and the cleanup with dichloromethane were more effective in minimizing the ionic suppression.Fil: de Gerónimo, Eduardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Área de Investigación en Agronomía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Lorenzón, Claudio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Córdoba. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; ArgentinaFil: Iwasita, Bárbara. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Misiones. Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul. Agencia de Extension Rural Apostoles.; ArgentinaFil: Costa, José L.. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Área de Investigación en Agronomía; ArgentinaLippincott Williams2018-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/101572de Gerónimo, Eduardo; Lorenzón, Claudio; Iwasita, Bárbara; Costa, José L.; Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil; Lippincott Williams; Soil Science; 183; 1; 7-2018; 34-400038-075XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1097/SS.0000000000000225info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201900249225info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:43:57Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/101572instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:43:57.665CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
title Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
spellingShingle Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
de Gerónimo, Eduardo
Glyphosate
AMPA
Soil
Ultra-performance Chromatography
Matrix effects
title_short Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
title_full Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
title_fullStr Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
title_sort Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv de Gerónimo, Eduardo
Lorenzón, Claudio
Iwasita, Bárbara
Costa, José L.
author de Gerónimo, Eduardo
author_facet de Gerónimo, Eduardo
Lorenzón, Claudio
Iwasita, Bárbara
Costa, José L.
author_role author
author2 Lorenzón, Claudio
Iwasita, Bárbara
Costa, José L.
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Glyphosate
AMPA
Soil
Ultra-performance Chromatography
Matrix effects
topic Glyphosate
AMPA
Soil
Ultra-performance Chromatography
Matrix effects
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.4
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Modern agricultural technology is based on a package that combines direct seeding and glyphosate with transgenic crops (soybean, maize, and cotton). Because of widespread glyphosate use, it is important to assess its impact on the environment. However, glyphosate´s unique physicochemical characteristics make determination difficult at residue concentrations, especially in soils with high organic matter content, such as the soils from the central eastern region of Argentina, where strong analytical interferences are normally observed. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency of two extraction methods of glyphosate using representative soils from Argentina. One method is based on the use of a phosphate buffer as the extracting solution and dichloromethane to minimize matrix organic content. The other method uses potassium hydroxide for the soil extraction of analytes and involves a cleanup step using solid phase extraction to minimize analytical interferences. Both methodologies involve a derivatization with 9-fluorenyl-methyl-chloroformate in borate buffer, the use of isotope labeled glyphosate as an internal standard, and detection based on ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Recoveries obtained for soil samples spiked at 100 and 1000 μg kg−1 were satisfactory in both methods (70%?120%). However, significant differences were observed in the effects on the organic matrix. The solid phase extraction cleanup step was insufficient to remove the interferences, whereas the dilution and the cleanup with dichloromethane were more effective in minimizing the ionic suppression.
Fil: de Gerónimo, Eduardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Área de Investigación en Agronomía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Lorenzón, Claudio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Córdoba. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; Argentina
Fil: Iwasita, Bárbara. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Misiones. Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul. Agencia de Extension Rural Apostoles.; Argentina
Fil: Costa, José L.. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Área de Investigación en Agronomía; Argentina
description Modern agricultural technology is based on a package that combines direct seeding and glyphosate with transgenic crops (soybean, maize, and cotton). Because of widespread glyphosate use, it is important to assess its impact on the environment. However, glyphosate´s unique physicochemical characteristics make determination difficult at residue concentrations, especially in soils with high organic matter content, such as the soils from the central eastern region of Argentina, where strong analytical interferences are normally observed. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency of two extraction methods of glyphosate using representative soils from Argentina. One method is based on the use of a phosphate buffer as the extracting solution and dichloromethane to minimize matrix organic content. The other method uses potassium hydroxide for the soil extraction of analytes and involves a cleanup step using solid phase extraction to minimize analytical interferences. Both methodologies involve a derivatization with 9-fluorenyl-methyl-chloroformate in borate buffer, the use of isotope labeled glyphosate as an internal standard, and detection based on ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Recoveries obtained for soil samples spiked at 100 and 1000 μg kg−1 were satisfactory in both methods (70%?120%). However, significant differences were observed in the effects on the organic matrix. The solid phase extraction cleanup step was insufficient to remove the interferences, whereas the dilution and the cleanup with dichloromethane were more effective in minimizing the ionic suppression.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-07
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/101572
de Gerónimo, Eduardo; Lorenzón, Claudio; Iwasita, Bárbara; Costa, José L.; Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil; Lippincott Williams; Soil Science; 183; 1; 7-2018; 34-40
0038-075X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/101572
identifier_str_mv de Gerónimo, Eduardo; Lorenzón, Claudio; Iwasita, Bárbara; Costa, José L.; Evaluation of Two Extraction Methods to Determine Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil; Lippincott Williams; Soil Science; 183; 1; 7-2018; 34-40
0038-075X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1097/SS.0000000000000225
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201900249225
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Lippincott Williams
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Lippincott Williams
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614475751096320
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares